« AnteriorContinuar »
and it will also be noted that during operative conditions, and when the engine is starting, idling, or running at lower speed, this lighttension spring, by the action of the engine, is automatically adjusted to such higher or lower tension as properly regulates the valve to pass the needed proportion of air. It will likewise be observed that the device also contains means for operatively adjusting the tension of this spring. This is done by inserting or withdrawing the wedgeshaped member 29a, whose mechanical operation, it will be observed, is precisely that caused by the movement of the valve, viz., if pushed in it lessens the distance between cap 32 and collar 269, and tenses light-tension spring 25. It is the same thing that is done by valve 21, when it is drawn down by suction. It will thus be seen that the Packard wedge serves during the original starting, idling, and low speeding of the engine to adjust and regulate the light-tension spring 25, and that during those times that spring, in connection with suction, controls and regulates the movement of valve 21. We here call attention to this fact, viz., the complete, independent, operative control of light-tension spring 25 by the thinner end of the Packard wedge, as one of special significance with relation to the operation of Parkin's device.
Turning from this operative low speed period, when the light-tension spring dominates the valve, we pass on to an operative condition when the engine's speed increases. Nested within the light-tension spring 25 and encircling stem 214, is the high-tension spring 31. This spring is normally under no pressure, and it only comes under pressure when the high speed of the engine draws down valve 21 and stem cap 32, so that cap 32 engages the upper end of spring 31. It will thus be seen its function is to dominate valve 21 when the engine is running at high speed. When such dominating function comes into play by the cap and spring top engaging, the tension of such hightension spring may be still further increased by the use of the thicker end of the Packard wedge. When that end of the wedge is used under such high speed conditions, it is apparent that the wedge effects a dual and conjoint adjustment of both light and heavy tension springs, instead of the single, independent, light-tension spring adjustment when the engine was running at low speed. But, even so, such increase of tension as the light spring is given must in the nature of things be of relatively small moment, since the like stem shortening to which both springs are subjected must necessarily impart more tension proportionately to the stronger than to the weaker spring. Be that as it may, it necessarily follows that, as the high-tension inner spring dominates the valve at high engine speed, and the low-tension spring's effect is negligible, it would seem that a wedge action, which further increases such dominating power in the high-tension spring, may for practical and operative purpose be regarded as effecting an actual independent adjustment of the low-tension spring under low speed operative conditions, and a practically independent adjustment of the high-tension spring under high speed operative conditions.
In this state of the art, Parkin devised the spring adjustment shown in the accompanying figures:
When the machine is in use the outer or light-tension spring 28 and the inner or high-tension spring 26 of Parkin's device operate in precisely the same way as the same two springs in the Packard device, to automatically control the air valve. The outer or light-tension spring dominates during low speed, and the inner or high-tension dominates high speed operation. Thus the specification says:
"During the operation of the engine, the greater the speed thereof, the greater is the tendency of the piston to create a vacuum in the cylinder in drawing in the explosive charge, and therefore, in order to preserve as nearly as possible the proper proportion of mixture of vaporized oil and air, the two springs 26 and 28 are provided, which may be adjusted to vary the spring pressure acting upon the valve 20 to hold it against its seat. That is to say, if it be desired to run the engine at a slow speed, the arm 29 will be adjusted to the low part of the cam 30 to move the spring 26 out of engagement with the head 23, and the arm 29 will be adjusted upon the cam 32 to a position in which it will cause the spring 28 to exert the proper amount of pressure upon the valve 20 to produce the proper explosive mixture for the desired speed of the engine. When, however, it is desired to run the engine at high speed, the arm 29 is adjusted in respect to the cam 30 not only to bring the spring 26 into engagement with the head 23a but also to bring it into engagement with the head with sufficient pressure which, in conjunction with the pressure of the
spring 28, will resist the tendency to open the valve 20 sufficiently to prevent the engine at high speed from drawing an excess amount of air into the explosive mixture through the valve opening 14. It will thus be seen that by the employment of the springs 26 and 28, and their coacting parts, a wide range of adjustment of the pressure against the valve 20 is obtained, and that the arm 29 may be adjusted upon the cam 30 to provide the required pressure for the desired high speed, and the arm 31 is adjusted in respect to the cam 32 to produce the required pressure for the desired low speed.”
It will thus be seen that the only difference consists in Parkin's adjustment cam 29, which adjusts low-tension spring 28, and arm 29, which adjusts high-tension spring 26. These arms do adjust the springs separately and independently, and such independent adjustment is the only element in combination which differentiates Parkin's device from Packard's. The case, therefore, narrows down to the question whether this difference constitutes invention. We are satisfied it does not. As we have already seen, when the engine is run at low speed Packard, by the use of the forward end of his wedge, adjusted his low tension spring independently by pushing the inclined plane of the spring so as to force the spring top against the stem ahead, and thus increase tension. In the same way, by withdrawing the wedge, he lowered tension. By use of similar mechanical means, to wit, the in· clined surface of a cam, Parkin lessened or increased the tension of his low-tension spring, while his engine was running at low speed, as will be seen by the extract quoted above. It is manifest, therefore, that no invention was involved in the slight mechanical change incident to this change, or in installing a similar cam and arm to increase or lessen the tension of the high-tension spring. Whatever advantage accrued from the change, we are of opinion that it did not involve invention and the claims in issue, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, are invalid. Such being the case, it follows that patent No. 1,082,762 which was an improvement based and dependent on the first patent, and which simply consisted in controlling the adjustment from the operator's seat, is equally lacking in invention.
The decree below is therefore reversed, and the cause will be remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill.
On Petition for Reargument. PER CURIAM. We have carefully re-examined this case, and are satisfied the court thoroughly grasped the pertinent and controlling facts, and that the decision was right. We are further of opinion no different conclusion would have been reached, had the alleged newly discovered evidence been before us.
The petition for reargument, as well as the petition for leave to apply to the District Court for leave to take further testimony, are therefore denied.
(231 Fed. 985)
AUTOMATIC RECORDING SAFE CO. v. BURNS CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 15, 1916. On Rehearing,
March 31, 1916.)
1. PATENTS 328—VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-SAVINGS BANK.
The Fisher patent, No. 793,779, for a portable savings bank, discloses patentable novelty and invention, and is valid. Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8
also held infringed, and claims 2, 3, and 4 not infringed. 2. PATENTS 170—CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS.
A construction which would make two verbally different claims in a patent identical is not to be followed, when there is nothing in the prior art which constrains to any such construction.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. g 245; Dec. Dig. Om 170.]
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Suit in equity by the Automatic Recording Safe Company against the Burns Company. From the decree (224 Fed. 513), complainant appeals. Modified and affirmed.
This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Southern District of New York. Several patents were involved, but the only questions argued before us are concerned with the patent to Charles Fisher, No. 793,779, issued July 4, 1905, for a savings bank. The District Court found validity in all the claims of this patent, and that claims 6, 7, and 8 were infringed. Complainant has appealed from so much of the decree as holds that claims 1 to 5, inclusive, are not infringed. Defendant has not appealed. The opinion of Judge Sanborn will be found in 224 Fed. 513.
Dyrenforth, Lee, Chritton & Wiles, of Chicago, Ill. (John H. Lee and P. C. Dyrenforth, both of Chicago, Ill., and Hillary C. Messimer, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. The patents all relate to what are known as portable savings banks. Such a bank consists of a case to hold the coins which are to be placed in it, and an outer case to be slipped over the coin container. The two cases are locked together and the coins slipped in through slits in the outer case. When the bank is full, the cases may be unlocked and the coins removed. Originaily the coin case was a single compartment, in which coins of various denominations were mingled together. Thereafter the coin container was provided with a series'of tubes or compartments, so arranged that coins of one denomination are separated from those of another denomination. With banks thus constructed the container had to be turned upside down in order to remove the coins from their
For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered "igests & Indexes
several containers; the result was that they would frequently become commingled when discharged and had to be sorted before counting.
This patent, 793,779, undertook to Fig 3
remedy that defect, so that, when the outer case was removed, the coins in the several compartments could be readily counted. The devices to accomplish this were held to involve patentable novelty, and we see no reason to dissent from that conclusion. The following drawing will sufficiently indicate the arrangement of the coin containers. When the outer case or cover is slipped over the coin case its interior combines with the flanges A1, A2, A3, etc., to form separate compartments for coins of different de
nominations. It is apparent that, when the outer cover is removed, the coins may be counted, and the separate piles be separately removed, either by drawing each pile out, or by lifting it up. Defendant's device, or rather its coin-containing part, is shown below:
The five claims which complainLOCK-SLOT EG 3
ant contends are infringed as well BILLS as Nos. 6, 7, and 8, read as follows:
"1. In a portable savings bank, a core comprising a plurality of rigid vertical flanges spaced apart to form compartments to receive coins, the distance be
tween the flanges of each compartment GORE being greater than the diameter of the
coins to be received by such compartment, the adjacent flanges being united at corresponding ends by walls adapted to partially surround the coins.
"2. In a portable savings bank, a core
comprising a base, a plurality of rigid radially projecting flanges spaced apart to form compartments to receive coins, the distance between the outer edges of the radial flanges at each side of each compartment being greater than the diameter of the coins to be received by such compartment.
"3. In a portable savings bank, a core comprising a horizontal base, a plurality of rigid vertical radially projecting flanges spaced different distances apart to form compartments to receive coins of different denominations, the distance between the outer edges of the radial flanges at each side of each compartment being greater than the diameter of the coins to be received by such compartment.
“4. In a portable savings bank, a core comprising a circular horizontal base and a plurality of rigid vertical radially projecting flanges spaced different distances apart to form compartments to receive coins of different denominations, the inner edges of adjacent flanges being united by curved walls conforming to the peripheries of the coins, and the outer edges of adjacent flanges being spaced apart a distance greater than the diameters of the coins to be received by the compartment between such flanges.